Registered user login:

TheFaithColumn

The Faith Column

Every week a different believer gives the inside track on their religion or philosophy.

The Faith Column Homepage

Children and emotional abuse

  • Posted by Maryam Namazie
  • 06 February 2008

Labelling children with the faith of their parents is obscene

Since I began calling myself an ex-Muslim, there have been quite a number of people questioning me on whether I was ever a ‘real Muslim’ to begin with. The BBC Asian Network host (can’t quite remember his name) even wanted to know whether I had prayed 5 times a day; attended a mosque; wore the hejab. And some commentators have questioned whether a Shia can ever be considered a Muslim.

But everyone and their uncles are deemed ‘Muslims’ just by the nature of where they were born or their family background - no questions asked.

And this is particularly true about children.

Frankly, I think it’s obscene to label children with the real or imputed religion of their parents. We wouldn’t dream of labelling a child as an ‘extreme right’ one because his father belonged to the BNP or a Labour or Conservative child by parental association but we as a society have very little problem doing so when it comes to religion.

We have come a long way from the days when children were seen to be the property of their parents to do with them as they liked. Today, in Britain at least, a child cannot be denied medical attention because her parents don’t believe in blood transfusions, can’t be beaten and starved to ‘exorcise demons’ or be genitally mutilated and married at nine because it is her parents’ religion.

But we obviously haven’t come far enough to stop the more subtle, but just as harmful, forms of emotional abuse like sending children to Islamic schools and child veiling.

How can it be anything but abusive when girls are sexualised at a young age, kept segregated from boys, taught that they are different and unequal?

And it has nothing to do with choice. It’s interesting how children don’t have the choice to go to school or smoke for example but when you question religion’s role in their lives, it suddenly becomes a matter of their choice - as if they really had any.

As Mansoor Hekmat, the late Iranian Marxist has said:

The child has no religion, tradition and prejudices. She has not joined any religious sect. She is a new human being who, by accident and irrespective of her will has been born into a family with specific religion, tradition, and prejudices.

It is indeed the task of society to neutralise the negative effects of this blind lottery. Society is duty-bound to provide fair and equal living conditions for children, their growth and development, and their active participation in social life. Anybody who should try to block the normal social life of a child, exactly like those who would want to physically violate a child according to their own culture, religion, or personal or collective complexes, should be confronted with the firm barrier of the law and the serious reaction of society.

No nine year old girl chooses to be married, sexually mutilated, serve as house maid and cook for the male members of the family, and be deprived of exercise, education, and play. The child grows up in the family and in society according to established customs, traditions, and regulations, and automatically learns to accept these ideas and customs as the norms of life.

To speak of the choice of the Islamic veil by the child herself is a ridiculous joke. Anyone who presents the mechanism of the veiling of a kindergarten-age girl as her own 'democratic choice' either comes from outer space, or is a hypocrite who does not deserve to participate in the discussion about children's rights and the fight against discrimination.’ (http://www.marxists.org/archive/hekmat-mansoor/1997/06/child...)

Post this article to

  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • newsvine
  • Reddit

10 comments from readers

Zia
06 February 2008 at 11:22

Excellent articles Maryam!

I have a question for the MCB and other Islam apologists: If the Islam is so 'pure and perfect' (ie the Quran is 'perfect') then why is it so easily 'hijacked and corrupted' by the numerous fanatics?

The fact that situations like the teddy bear, the Danish cartoons and 9/11 occur suggest to me that Islam, is far from perfect.

Zia
06 February 2008 at 15:29

Do I take it that the lack of a response means that the fanatics preach the true Islam?

radius
06 February 2008 at 20:24

Absolutely. Children who are too young to understand and adopt an ideology should be referred to as the children of Jewish, Christian and Muslim parents, not "Christian children" etc. Yet a society which wouldn't recognise a 'monetarist child' or a 'neocon child', not only insists on labelling infants with the belief-system of their parents, but gives it particular encouragement thru "faith" schools. We actually have schools in this country which base admission on the amount of 4 year old children who show the most "religious commitment"....The reality is that most 'faith' is inherited - and given that ideas can't meaningfully be inherited, one has to wonder how real such a 'faith' can ever be. And why we give it such special treatment.

HarryStottle
06 February 2008 at 23:55

This is the first time - since 2005 when I posted my own argument that religious eduction of children constituted child abuse and should be made illegal along with all other forms of child abuse - that I've found any other serious article making a similar point.

I'm on the lookout for other examples so if you know of any, please get in touch. Meanwhile my own, if anyone is interested, forms part of my atheist analysis of the Ten Commandments and can be found here:

http://www.fullmoon.nu/book/chap.php?id=TenCommandments

TenthSpeedWriter
07 February 2008 at 03:34

I'm a cynical agnostic, who attends an all-ages religious school, willingly. Junior year.

I don't agree in the least with how they teach present the world to children. They completely tune out the "left" half of the world; even our biology and history books are property of the Bob Jones University press.

Children don't get much of a choice in their religion. Either they accept what they're told about the rest of the world, and about "what the bible tells them," or they're disciplined and perhaps expelled.

And parents pay for this.

I don't mean to speak badly about the school. It's a fine institution of education; I've gained more than enough positive marks on my record to attend my chosen college. But the youngest grades, I truly feel sorry for.

And I hope I never have to hear of the "the faggot liberals ruining the country" from a tenth grader's mouth, ever again.

Abu Ali
07 February 2008 at 13:41

Another excellent article Maryam! You are sooo right to highlight the double standards when it comes to questioning whether you are really an ex-Muslim if you didn't wear hijab, pray etc... YET all those "Muslims" who don't do those things are considered Muslims and under threat of death if they reject Islam.

nawawimohamad
12 February 2008 at 04:50

Dear Maryam Namazie,

Your paranoia against Islam is simply beacuse you lack the knowledge and understanding of it. What you had was your own perceptions. You views are one side, naive, ignorant and prejudiced.

Religion is based on faith and believe, complimented by knowledge and understanding and thus put into practice. You cannot just take a part of it and ignoring the rest. It is true of all religions. I have all my respects for all the religions of the world and the right for each believer to practice his/her religion but not to condemn others. If you don't believe in any religion, so be it, don't condemn and criticise other religions as you know nothing of it in the first place!

Now, people without religion or rather not believing in God are actually selfish, self-centred and take things for granted without thinking. Their simple argument is that if one cannot see God, then God does not exist. It is as simple as saying that if I cannot see Maryam's brain, then Maryam has no brain.

After saying all that, I think maybe it is just a waste of time arguing with those atheists for they are not even at peace with themselves!

radius
12 February 2008 at 20:54

nawawimohamad, surely it is people *with* religion who are selfish? You project your self onto infinity and eternity as "God", a God whose main function is to be there for you and in particular to keep your self from oblivion. Those who accept the reality of the human condition - that we have no part in things that are infinitely bigger than us, and that our 'self' will not endure, are truly "at peace with themselves" because they do not cling to the illusion that they will somehow survive death.

BobChurchill
13 February 2008 at 14:19

@ nawawimohamad

Putting your bluster and ad hominem attacks to one side, you make an argument that "You cannot just take a part of it [religion] and ignoring the rest".

I do not think this is true. In any complex of ideas, individual concepts or instructions can be treated in isolation and criticised in and of themselves.

Of course, considering as much of the faith, theory or ideology of a person as possible, may help in understanding the mind of that person. Neverthless there is no logical problem with treating an individual idea as an individual idea. If, for example, I held a racist view about some race, you could criticise that view on the basis of its internal inconsistency or its social consequences and so on, without any reference to my wider beliefs or justifications for that view. I could show you a tract which I claimed supported my view, but you could still damn the racism for its own insidious faults without reference to the wider rationale that I might hold.

(Note: I'm not for a minute suggesting that Maryam Namazie does not have a broad and indeapth knowledge and understanding of Islam, I'm only saying that there is no contradiction in her criticising individual social aspects of the creed. In other words, it is not only probably false but completley irrelevant as a counter-argument to criticise her global understanding of Islam.)

This is not a minor point. It is a condition of rational and progressive debate that we are capable of treating concepts, policies or ideas individually without being forced to necessarily provide an analysis of every possible connected idea, justification, or a whole belief system.

nawawimohamad
15 February 2008 at 09:46

To BobChurchill

As a simple explanation on considering a whole concept and not just part of it, consider these sentences;

"Mryam is an idiot" said Micheal. " No, she is not" replied her best friend.

Without reading the whole conversation you will not understand the issue being discussed. Just try to make some sense on the sentence "Mryam is an idiot"

Now, I hope you get my point.

Post your comment

Please note: you will need to login or register before your comment is displayed on the website

We want to encourage people to comment on our content and to exchange views with other readers and hope this will be done on a courteous basis. However, if you encounter posts which are offensive please let us know by emailing comments@newstatesman.co.uk and we will take swift action where necessary.

About the writer

Maryam Namazie

Maryam Namazie is a rights activist, commentator and broadcaster. She is the Spokesperson of the Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain and Equal Rights Now; National Secular Society's 2005 Secularist of the Year award winner and an NSS Honorary Associate; producer of TV International English; and Central Committee member of the Worker-communist Party of Iran. She was recently selected as Elle Magazine’s (Quebec) top 45 women of 2007.

Recent Posts

Are the Kalash being converted to Islam?

  • By Maureen Lines
  • 04 September 2008

Temples of the Kalasha religion

  • By Maureen Lines
  • 02 September 2008

Pakistan's ancient religion

  • By Maureen Lines
  • 01 September 2008

Will the Dalai Lama return to Tibet?

  • By Meindert Gorter
  • 29 August 2008

Why did the Dalai Lama ban Dorje Shugden?

  • By Meindert Gorter
  • 28 August 2008

Are Dalai Lama's critics backed by China?

  • By Meindert Gorter
  • 27 August 2008

The deity banned by Dalai Lama

  • By Meindert Gorter
  • 26 August 2008